§ 9-5-8.Grant of injunctions in discretion of court; power to be exercised cautiously

This is the section that ties the rest of the chapter together. Whatever specific ground a party relies on — trespass, waste, a threatened tort, a sheriff’s sale — the ultimate call on whether to grant or continue an injunction belongs to the judge, exercised according to the circumstances of the particular case.

The statute does not leave that discretion unguided. It tells judges to use the power prudently and cautiously, and it goes further, saying an injunction “should not be resorted to” except in clear and urgent cases. That is a deliberate check against treating injunctions as an everyday remedy.

The rule covers continuing an injunction, not just granting one in the first place — so a judge revisiting whether an existing injunction should stay in place applies the same cautious standard as one deciding whether to issue it. Taken together with the specific grounds elsewhere in this chapter, this section is the backstop: even where a party checks every box for a particular type of injunction, the judge still weighs whether the case is clear and urgent enough to warrant it.